Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Kyobu Geka. 2006 Apr;59(4):329-35.

[Aortic valve replacement in elderly patients with small aortic annulus; is the indexed effective orifice area important?].

[Article in Japanese]

Author information

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Toyohashi Heart Center, Japan.


We sought to determine whether the small indexed effective orifice area (EOAI) increased mortality and morbidity after aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients over 75 years of age. From May 1999 to July 2005, 77 patients underwent isolated AVR for aortic stenosis. They were divided into 3 groups (S-EOAI : EOAI < or = 0.7 cm2/m2, M-EOAI : 0.7 cm2/m2 <EOAI < or = 0.85 cm2/ m2, L-EOAI : 0.85cm2/m2 <EOAI) for evaluation. We examined the body surface area (BSA), EOAI, and the left ventricular (LV) mass index (LVMI). We found that patients with S-EOAI had less symptomatic improvement (p <0.05, vs L-EOAI) and LV mass regression (p< 0.01, vs L-EOAI). But, their average New York Heart Association (NYHA) class was improved significantly (2.3 +/- 0.8 vs 1.8 +/- 0.7 : preoperative vs postoperative, p=0.001). Furthermore, severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) had no significant negative impacts on the freedom of valve-related complications (75.1% : S-EOAI group vs 92.0% : L-EOAI group) and the 5-year survival (84.9% : S-EOAI group vs 87.8% : L-EOAI group). In elderly patients, the average NYHA class was 1.9 +/- 0.6 postoperatively (p<0.0001 vs preoperative) and the LVMI showed significant regression (p<0.0001) despite an average EOAI of 0.73 +/- 0.13 cm2/m2. It is important to consider whether the benefits of avoiding PPM overcome the drawbacks of other complicated techniques. In this study, we found that moderate PPM (0.7 cm2/m2 < or = EOAI) is acceptable to elderly patients.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Sunmedia PierOnline
    Loading ...
    Support Center